Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

[Divine Insight]

In another thread The Tanager has requested a separate thread for his argument for the existence of a Non-Subjective morality.

You made the claim that subjective morality exists in that other thread and this one. I am responding to that claim. I'm also willing afterwards to offer my own reasons for believing in non-subjective morality. If and/or how would one come to know what the non-subjective morality is would be an additional question, but it does not settle this one that we are talking about because of the claims you have made. After this discussion, start a thread on that and I'll share my thoughts.

I would be very interested to hear these arguments.

If and/or how would one come to know what the non-subjective morality is would be an additional question

I agree. First we need to have reasons to even suspect that such a thing exists. I would like to hear those arguments first.

But yes, if those initial arguments are compelling (which I confess to being skeptic about already), a far more important question would be the question of how we could come to know what those moral rules are.

Without this additional knowledge the existence of a non-subjective morality would be useless. A system of morality whose content cannot be known would be meaningless.

So yes, we not only need to have arguments for the existence of a non-subjective morality, but we then need to know precisely what it contains without ambiguity.

Any ambiguity would bring us right back to having to subjectively guess what we think it might contain anyway. So that would hardly be useful and would instantly return us right back to a state of subjective morality.

So yes, we don't just need to know that an objective morality exists, but we also need to know precisely what it contains.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 43 by Artie]

The measure of objective morals is not simply behavior but actual "good" and "bad" outcomes to it. I see no assurances of good outcomes when I explained how physical forces wipe out the good and bad alike. This would show that objective reality is amoral.

Some behaviors were beneficial for the well-being and survival of societies, some were not. We call those beneficial behaviors good, right and moral, the detrimental ones bad, wrong and immoral. The reason we call it objective morality is because whether those behaviors are actually objectively good or bad for society does not depend on human subjective opinion.

God is also said to be objective but yet many would say his moral system is flawed on many levels. I suppose we can say the same for evolution because apparently it does NOT ensure a survival even if the "good" morals are followed. A simple test to show this would be pointing to the countless of species that are extinct and how the good and bad are wiped away due to physical forces.

I'm left asking again what good are "objective" morals if they don't serve their purpose to ensure order and survival, assuming that life was meant to continue to begin with.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 43 by Artie]The measure of objective morals is not simply behavior but actual "good" and "bad" outcomes to it. I see no assurances of good outcomes when I explained how physical forces wipe out the good and bad alike. This would show that objective reality is amoral.

Some behaviors were beneficial for the well-being and survival of societies, some were not. We call those beneficial behaviors good, right and moral, the detrimental ones bad, wrong and immoral. The reason we call it objective morality is because whether those behaviors are actually objectively good or bad for society does not depend on human subjective opinion.

God is also said to be objective but yet many would say his moral system is flawed on many levels. I suppose we can say the same for evolution because apparently it does NOT ensure a survival even if the "good" morals are followed. A simple test to show this would be pointing to the countless of species that are extinct and how the good and bad are wiped away due to physical forces.

I'm left asking again what good are "objective" morals if they don't serve their purpose to ensure order and survival, assuming that life was meant to continue to begin with.

Life wasn't "meant" to continue to begin with! Life wasn't "meant" to continue to begin with! Thanks to evolution and natural selection it just did automatically! Nobody "meant" it to continue to begin with! It just did automatically!

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 52 by Artie]

That's like saying life was not meant to be good or bad but yet we still have "objective" morals. That defeats the purpose of morality.

[Artie]

AgnosticBoy wrote:

[Replying to post 52 by Artie]

That's like saying life was not meant to be good or bad but yet we still have "objective" morals. That defeats the purpose of morality.

There's no "purpose" of morality. Some behaviors are objectively beneficial for societies, we call those good or right or moral, some behaviors are objectively detrimental and we call those bad or wrong or immoral. The majority of us have brains wired to behave morally simply because we are descendants of people who survived because they also had brains wired to behave morally. The reason we call them objective morals is because which behaviors are beneficial or detrimental are not determined by subjective human opinion. For example, you could be of the subjective opinion that it would be good and moral for a society if everybody killed each other but you would be objectively wrong. Hence what is moral is not subjective.

[Divine Insight]

My brain is wired for moral behavior which is stopping me from committing atrocities.

Please explain why this isn't the case for all humans?

What makes you so special?

Never said I was special. I'm one of the vast majority. Notice how DI puts words in my mouth I never said.

You claim that your brain is wired for moral behavior which stops you from committing atrocities.

But we know that in the real world there are those who do commit atrocities.

So doesn't it follow that we should then inquire how it is that your brain is wired for moral behavior while theirs isn't.

Wouldn't that make your brain "special" then?

[Artie]

My brain is wired for moral behavior which is stopping me from committing atrocities.

Please explain why this isn't the case for all humans?

What makes you so special?

Never said I was special. I'm one of the vast majority. Notice how DI puts words in my mouth I never said.

You claim that your brain is wired for moral behavior which stops you from committing atrocities.

But we know that in the real world there are those who do commit atrocities.

So doesn't it follow that we should then inquire how it is that your brain is wired for moral behavior while theirs isn't.

Wouldn't that make your brain "special" then?

No. Mine is just one of billions. And since you are even capable of asking such a question I don't see much point in continuing this conversation.

[Bust Nak]

Because of course my brain could have been altered by injury or disease so I have to double check that my wiring corresponds to what is actually objectively moral.

That's the other side of the same coin: If you have this way of checking moral correctness, why are you appealing to brain wiring in the first place?

Like defining the earth to be flat by appealing to the subjective opinion of flat earthers. That is not how rational people determine objective truth.

You presume there are such things as objective moral truths. Appealing to subjective opinion is the only way rational people determine subjective truth.

To be a moral person means to do what is objectively moral in each situation. Not to do what he subjectively thinks is moral without checking first whether it's actually objectively moral.

Again, false by counter example: I am a moral person that do what I subjectively thinks is moral without checking first whether it's actually objectively moral or not. Don't you find your offering the least question begging, if not outright circular?

Just because he subjectively might think it would be moral doesn't make it objectively moral.

First you have to establish that there is such a thing as objective morality.

[Artie]

Because of course my brain could have been altered by injury or disease so I have to double check that my wiring corresponds to what is actually objectively moral.

That's the other side of the same coin: If you have this way of checking moral correctness, why are you appealing to brain wiring in the first place?

Because of course if they agree all the better.

Like defining the earth to be flat by appealing to the subjective opinion of flat earthers. That is not how rational people determine objective truth.

You presume there are such things as objective moral truths.

Of course. It's an objective moral truth that it would be detrimental for the well-being and survival of a society if everybody killed each other. No subjective opinion could make it beneficial.

To be a moral person means to do what is objectively moral in each situation. Not to do what he subjectively thinks is moral without checking first whether it's actually objectively moral.

Again, false by counter example: I am a moral person that do what I subjectively thinks is moral without checking first whether it's actually objectively moral or not.

LOL. What you subjectively think is moral isn't necessarily moral or objectively moral. Ted Bundy comes to mind.

Just because he subjectively might think it would be moral doesn't make it objectively moral.

First you have to establish that there is such a thing as objective morality.

It's an objective moral truth that it would be detrimental for the well-being and survival of a society if everybody killed each other. No subjective opinion could make that behavior good/right/moral for a society.

[Bust Nak]

Because of course if they agree all the better.

Better as in it's nice but not required, so you don't need to appeal to brain wiring?

Of course. It's an objective moral truth that it would be detrimental for the well-being and survival of a society if everybody killed each other. No subjective opinion could make it beneficial.

Why do you consider that an objective moral truth? Does it not ring any warning bells in your head when you have to appeal to a specialist dictionary to find a definition that define morality along the lines of beneficial to society?

LOL. What you subjectively think is moral isn't necessarily moral or objectively moral.

There you go presuming moral objectivism again; under subjectivism, what I subjectively think is moral is necessarily moral.

No subjective opinion could make that behavior good/right/moral for a society.

Sure it can, if moral subjectivism is true, then a single subjective opinion (mine) would make that behavior good/right/moral.

[Divine Insight]

Wouldn't that make your brain "special" then?

No. Mine is just one of billions. And since you are even capable of asking such a question I don't see much point in continuing this conversation.

So? You would then be special with the club of billions of people who don't commit atrocities. I never meant to imply that you would be the only person on the planet who doesn't commit atrocities.

The problem with your argument is that there are people who do commit atrocities.

So then the question is why is your brain wired to not commit atrocities and not theirs?

I don't commit atrocities either. But even if my brain is wired to not commit atrocities then I too would belong to the special group of people who's brains are wired to not commit atrocities.

We can't ignore the people who do commit atrocities. But clearly you are ignoring those people. You're hiding behind the idea that since most people don't commit atrocities this somehow supports your argument for an objective morality. But the problem is that if it doesn't apply to ALL humans, then it can hardly be objective morality.

So your argument fails.

Keep in mind Artie that only a single counter-example is all that is required to show that an argument is false. So if a single solitary human commits atrocities then your argument for an objective morality based on brains being wired for morality fails.

And we both know that there are far more than one counter example to your argument. In fact, if we include things like priests molesting children or fathers molesting their own daughters, or even people doing any number or "immoral acts", then your argument for an objective morality based on brain wiring fails miserable.

So your argument fails. Period. There are simply too many counter-examples that violate your argument.

So you need to come up with a whole new argument. Your current argument has failed. Proven to be false by real-life counter examples.

So we're done here. Your argument for objective morality based on brain wiring clearly fails.